The ongoing Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests were hit with violence on Saturday, as private security forces reportedly hired by the pipeline builders descended on the Native American activists with pepper spray and dogs that bit and threatened the protesters.

Democracy Now!, which was on the ground at the time, posted several photographs and video of the attack:

In the video, security forces can be seen pushing the dogs to charge at protesters, while others raise cans of pepper spray at the crowds. One man shows a deep bite mark on his arm to the camera, stating, “I was walking, he threw the dog at me, straight, without any warning.” A security guard on the scene shakes his head at the man, smiling.

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman also separately confronts a woman on the security force, stating, “Ma’am, your dog just bit that protester. Are you telling the dogs to bite the protesters?” The woman refuses to answer.

The tense standoff ends as the security team eventually pulls their dogs away from the crowds and drives away.

Couple of points here: The private security contractors here engaged in attacks, using dogs as a weapons, completely without necessity. The equipment operators had all left the scene in trucks before any violence occurred. At that point the mercs were “protecting” no one as they claimed to be acting in the defense of workers. Had they followed the workers no injuries would have occurred at all on either side. The dogs used for this action were poorly trained, apparently only taught to aggressively attack humans and not much else, as is evident in the video. The corporate mercs appeared likewise improperly trained to handle the animals. Upon being repeatedly prompted to charge the crowd and bite whoever or whatever was within reach 6 resisters were bitten and at least one handler/merc received a bite from the dog he was using. This was probably the one guard who was actually taken to the hospital but later refused treatment for “undisclosed injuries”. No evidence of injuries to the guards or even a description of their injuries was ever provided. Animals were injured as well of course. One of which had been prompted to bite the rear leg of a horse and unsurprisingly received a correction from the horse itself. These dogs were used in an unnecessarily aggressive manner which did result in injury to the animals themselves. One young man was using some kind of stick or flagpole to fend off the dog as he retreated backwards but was relentlessly pursued by the handler with the dog. Was he “attacking” or provoking the animal with the stick as the corporate spokespersons and sheriff proclaim or was he defending himself as you or I would? Also not mentioned is the likelihood that this security company was not licensed to work in the state for which they are currently under investigation. Despite having been called out both on an individual basis and as a company on social media the licensing board has indicated that they aren’t sure who this company is. Strange that….